DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Mathew's comments is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Mathew's comments

Jump to original thread »
Author

Is PaidContent really a “blog” at all?

Started by mathewi · 1 year ago

In a piece posted at the New York Times’ Bits blog, Saul Hansell pits Mike Arrington’s “vision of blogging’s future” against that of PaidContent founder Rafat Ali. One is personal and filled with lots of emotion (guess which one) and ... Continue reading »

4 comments

  • Steve Safran

    1 year ago

    Well, here we have the interesting question of "what's a blog?" followed by the more interesting "does it really matter, anyway?" PC is a blog, insofar as it constantly updates itself in the blog format, invites comments, has trackbacks and other features bloggy. So I don't see arguing that it's not a blog, simply because it lacks opinion.

    However, I think the more interesting debate is "What's a blog?" and "What does it matter?" PC uses the blog format... to deliver news. Unlike most blogs, it doesn't use news as a starting point for discussion. More news websites should be like this - they should feature a constant river of information as it happens, rather than waiting to post a finished product.

    It's my guess that MSM will adopt blog style more and more.

    Good one, Matthew.
    reply
  • mathewi

    1 year ago

    Thanks, Steve -- I think you are right. PC is using the blog format
    and blog tools to deliver something that (apart from comments) is far
    more like traditional media, and that is what makes it even more of a
    threat to that same traditional media than what most people think of
    when they hear the word "blog." I'd still much rather read TechCrunch
    or Gawker though :-)



    On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Disqus
    reply
  • K. Shaheedin

    1 year ago

    "But I also find that PaidContent.org isn’t that… well, interesting..."

    oh puh-leez. if that were a description of this blog, we'd be in full agreement. but it's so wrong and simply a smear.

    i suppose if you enjoy a website where its writers call other people "wanker" and "cun*," then you know where to click. but rafat and his team have built a web site that's both informative and engaging. if you find it less than thrilling, that's your problem. but your snark is ill-considered, silly and cheap. then again, i don't expect any less from a arrington fanboy.
    reply
  • mathewi

    1 year ago

    Whoa, K. -- chill out, dude. I just said I didn't find it that
    interesting. I didn't say it wasn't informative, and if you read the
    whole thing you can see that I think highly of Rafat and what he's
    been able to accomplish. I fail to see how any of that makes me an
    "Arrington fanboy."



    On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Disqus
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login